To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

(CE: 1669a-1678a)
MONOPHYSITISM, the doctrine that the incarnate Christ is one
Person and has one divine nature as opposed to the orthodox
doctrine that he is one Person and has two natures, one human and
one divine. The rift between the Monophysites, including the
Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches, and the
Orthodox Church has divided Eastern Christianity since the sixth
century. It emerged slowly after the Council of CHALCEDON in
451. The Monophysites hold firm to the main Christological tenant
of Saint CYRIL I, early fifth-century patriarch of Alexandria, that
the two natures of Christ were united at the Incarnation in such a
way that the one Christ was essentially divine, although he assumed
from the Virgin THEOTOKOS the flesh and attributes of a man.
The Period Before Chalcedon (325-451)
The distant origins of the Monophysite position can be found in
John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"), but no
theological issue arose until after the First Council of NICAEA in
325, at which it was agreed that Christ was to be acknowledged as
"of one substance with the Father." If, however, He was of one
substance (HOMOOUSION) with the Father, how was His
humanity to be understood? The long duration of the controversy
over ARIANISM, which denied that Christ was divine, masked the
problem, but during the 370s Apollinaris of Laodicea, an anti-Arian
and a lifelong friend of Saint ATHANASIUS I, patriarch of
Alexandria, set out a radical and uncompromising solution (see
APOLLINARIANISM). "The supreme point in our salvation," he
argued, "is the incarnation of the Word. We believe therefore that
with no change in his Godhead, the incarnation of the Word took
palce for the renewal of man." "We confess therefore," he told the
bishops of Syria at Diocaesarea, "that [the] Word of God . . . has
become flesh without having assumed a human mind, i.e., a mind
changeable and enslaved to filthy thoughts, but existing as a divine
mind, immutable and heavenly." Therefore, "We confess that . . . the
one Son is not two natures, one to be worshipped and one without
worship, but one incarnate nature of God the Word to be worshipped
with His flesh in one worship" (Lietzmann, 1904, pp. 178, 250).
Apollinarius' ideas struck an immediate response throughout the
East, and though they were condemned as unorthodox at the First
Council of CONSTANTINOPLE in 381, a large number of tracts
setting out his views were circulating at the end of the century under
the names of orthodox theologians, including Pope Saint Julius I and
Athanasius. These "Apollinarian forgeries" had an enormous effect
on the development of monophysitism, not least in contributing
toward the formation of Cyril of Alexandria's concept of the Person
of Christ.
Cyril's Christology was influenced by both genuine and false
Athanasian writings, and as his controversy with the Antiochene
monk NESTORIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, quickened, the
Monophysite element came increasingly to the fore. In his third
letter to Nestorius, who held that Christ was two separate persons,
he spoke of "the One Hypostasis ["Person"] Incarnate of the Word";
and in the third of the Twelve Anathemas appended to this letter he
declared anathema "anyone who divides the hypostases after the
union." There was "One Lord Jesus Christ," according to the
Scriptures.
The Council of EPHESUS in 431 condemned Nestorius but did
not declare Cyril's anathemas canonical. Two years later, in April
433, Cyril was obliged to come to terms with the Antiochenes and in
the formula of reunion to accept the orthodoxy of those who spoke
in terms of "two natures." This was a victory for Antiochene
theology and a reverse for the Alexandrians. Cyril's successor,
DIOSCORUS I, was determined to restore Alexandria's now
traditional status as "city of the orthodox." In Constantinople he
found an ally in the archimandrite EUTYCHES. The latter,
however, pushed his fear of two-nature Christology further than
Cyril would have allowed, asserting that the flesh of Christ was
God-made, so that Christ could in no sense be "consubstantial with
us." Eutyches was deposed on 22 November 448 by a synod
presided over by Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople.
Eutyches appealed to the councils of the other archiepiscopal
sees and to the church in Ravenna (the imperial residence in the
West) against his sentence. Annoyed by the quarrel between Flavian
and Eutyches, and fearing a revival of Nestorianism, Emperor
Theodosius II, who was now strongly Cyrilist in his theology,
convoked the Second council of Ephesus in 449 to judge the case of
Eutyches and to decide whether his deposition by Flavian had been
just. Dioscorus was to preside. Once again, the Apollinarian
forgeries played a crucial part in channeling doctrinal views in the
East toward a one-nature Christology. Eutyches produced texts,
accepted at Ephesus in 431 as genuine, of documents written
ostensibly by Pope Julius and Gregory the Wonderworker to support
his case. The council was entranced. "Two natures before the union,
and one afterward. Is that not what we all believe?" asked
Dioscorus. A long epistle from Pope LEO THE GREAT, known to
history as the Tome of Leo, written to support Flavian, asserted
exactly the opposite view. It was left unread. The council vindicated
Eutyches and condemned as troublemakers Flavian and the
archbishop of Antioch, Domnus, who had attempted to innovate
statements of the Council of Nicaea. The sentence was confirmed by
Theodosius.
The emperor's sudden death on 28 July 450 transformed the
situation. His successor, Marcian, married Theodosius' pro-Roman
sister PULCHERIA, and in the autumn of 451 they summoned
another ecumenical council, this one at Chalcedon. It had two aims:
to define the faith in a way that would restore communion between
Rome and the other patriarchates and to vindicate the position of the
see of Constantinople vis-à-vis all other sees in the East, particularly
that of Alexandria.
The council achieved both objectives. Dioscorus was
excommunicated and deposed—not, however, for doctrinal heresy
but for ecclesiastical indiscipline. The Definition of Chalcedon was
accepted, a statement of faith declaring that Jesus Christ was "made
known to us in two Natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably,
indivisibly, inseparably: the difference of the natures being in no
way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each
nature being preserved and concurring into one Prosopon and one
Hypostasis. . . ." Though the framers of the Definition intended a
careful balance between opposing Christologies, the wording
favored the Tome of Leo and the Antiochene cause. While Pope Leo
accepted the Definition, he rejected Canon 28 of the council, which
restated the primatial rights of Constantinople as the "New Rome."
Rome objected to the omission in the canon of any reference to the
apostolic and Petrine character of the see of Rome and was never
prepared to concede patriarchal status to its sister see of New Rome
(Constantinople). This canon, however, was all-important to
Constantinople, and for this reason, it could never entirely renounce
the Council of Chalcedon.
The arrogant behavior of Dioscorus had created a rift among the
seventeen Egyptian bishops who accompanied him to Chalcedon.
While the majority stood by their archbishop out of fear and loyalty,
four sided with the majority at the council, accepted the
Christological definition, and took part in the consecration of the
archpriest Proterius as successor of Dioscorus.
From Chalcedon to the Henoticon of Zeno (451-482)
Although the Definition of Chalcedon was well received in
Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and throughout the European
provinces of the empire, there was deep disquiet elsewhere. Clergy
and laity alike found it difficult to understand how opinions
accepted by 135 bishops only two years before Ephesus II should
now be regarded as heretical, and why Dioscorus should have been
excommunicated by many of the same bishops who previously had
applauded him. There were serious riots in Alexandria and in
Jerusalem, where Bishop Juvenal, an ally of Dioscorus who had
abandoned him at Chalcedon, was forced to flee the city (Zacharias
Rhetor, 3. 2; Liberatus, 14. 99; Evagrius, 2. 5). Something of the
intensity of popular feeling in many parts of the East against
Chalcedon has been caught by JOHN OF MAYUMA in his
Plerophoria (Witnesses), compiled about 512, in which he branded
as traitors and apostates those who had supported Chalcedon.
Although imperial troops suppressed the riots and Juvenal
returned to Jerusalem, Proterius failed to gain support in Egypt.
Opposition to Chalcedon coalesced around one of the priests of
Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus ("the Cat") (later TIMOTHY II
AELURUS) and the deacon Peter Mongus ("the Hoarse One") (later
Peter II Mongus), both future patriarchs. As soon as the news of the
death of Marcian reached Alexandria, there was a popular uprising
against Proterius. Timothy was consecrated bishop on 16 March 457
or 458, and on 28 March Proterius was lynched. There was now a
schism between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians in Egypt.
The schism lasted until 482. In 459 Timothy Aelurus was
ordered into exile in Kherson in the Crimea by the new emperor,
Leo I, who was responding to episcopal opinion throughout the rest
of the empire (see Zacharias Rhetor, 4.5-7, Brooks ed., pp. 121-24;
and Schwartz, 1914, 2.v.). In 460 the Proterians elected as successor
to Proterius, who had died, the Pachomian monk TIMOTHY
SALOFACIOLUS ("Wobble Cap"). The death of Leo in January
474 gave Timothy Aelurus his chance. Leo's son, Leo II, died in
November, and his successor, Zeno, was unpopular. Timothy took
advantage of Basiliscus' revolution against Zeno, in January 475, to
leave his place of exile and make for Constantinople. There he was
favored by the usurper and restored as patriarch of Alexandria.
Basiliscus published an encyclical condemning the Tome of Leo and
all things of Chalcedon that "innovated against the holy creed of the
38 holy fathers [of Nicaea]" (Evagrius, 3.4, 3.7). Up to this point,
neither the Alexandrian opponents of Chalcedon nor their allies
elsewhere, the Diakrimonenoi (Hesitants), contemplated a division
in the church. Their aims were the acceptance by the empire of
Cyril's teaching in its fullness, the denunciation of the Tome of Leo,
and the reduction of the status of Chalcedon to that of a disciplinary
synod (like Ephesus II) anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches.
Basiliscus had been ready to comply.
Basiliscus fell, largely owing to the opposition of Acacius,
patriarch of Constantinople, who was supported by the people of the
capital and spurred on by Daniel the Stylite (Evagrius, 3.7). Zeno
returned in triumph in August 476, but he recognized that the empire
must come to terms with ever increasing anti-Chalcedonian feeling
in Egypt, parts of western and southern Asia Minor, and now in
Syria, where, opponents of the council had found a leader in Peter
the Fuller. After the death of Timothy II Aleurus, and of his rival in
February 482, the emperor and his patriarch addressed a letter to
"the bishops, monks and laity of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrenaica"
with the aim of achieving an acceptable compromise.
The HENOTICON (Instrument of Unity) of 28 July 482 went as
far as possible to conciliate the anti-Chalcedonians without
explicitly denouncing Chalcedon (for the full text, see Schwartz,
1927, pp. 924-27). The safety of the Roman world was asserted to
rest on a universal acceptance of the Nicene Creed confirmed by the
Council of Constantinople (381). Eutyches and Nestorius were
condemned, but the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril were upheld, and
Christ incarnate from the Virgin was to be acknowledged "as one
and not two, for we say that both His miracles and His sufferings
which He willingly underwent in the flesh are of one person. Every
person, who has thought or thinks anything else now or at any time
either in Chalcedon or in any other synod whatever, we
anathematize."
Though in form the emperor had merely written a letter to the
patriarchate of Alexandria, the Henoticon marks another important
step in consolidating the emperor's role as divinely appointed
governor of all Christians. For the next thirty-five years the
Henoticon was accepted as a statement of belief by the churches in
the East. Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were
again in communion.
The Acacian Schism
The Eastern patriarchates were not, however, on good terms with
Rome. A quarrel developed between Pope Simplicius and Acacius,
patriarch of Constantinople (see ACACIAN SCHISM), not over the
Henotican but because Acacius accepted Peter Mongus as patriarch
of Alexandria, although he had previously denounced him to the
pope as a "son of darkness" and unfit even for his original office as
deacon (Simplicius to Acacius, Epistulae; see also Frend, 1972, pp.
181-83).
The issue between Rome and Constantinople was primarily
disciplinary, but the Henoticon added fuel to the fire and to the
Acacian schism, which lasted until 519. In this period pro- and anti-
Chalcedonian sentiment in the empire gradually crystallized. By
about 500 the majority of the clergy and people of Constantinople
and the European provinces of the empire were Chalcedonian,
together with northern Asia Minor, western Syria (where the
influence of the Greek cities was strong), and Palestine (where the
monks were of various national origins and needed the emperor's
military support for their survival against Saracen marauders and
Jewish and Samaritan enmity). Egypt, Antioch, eastern Syria and
Mesopotamia, and the provinces of Isauria and Pamphylia in
southern Asia Minor were anti-Chalcedonian. Western Asia Minor
with Ephesus was sharply divided. Emperor Anastasius, though
personally inclined to monophysitism, steered a middle line by
insisting on unreserved respect for the Henoticon.
In 508, however, a new situation began to develop with the
arrival in Constantinople of the Monophysite monk Severus, on
mission from the monastery of Mayuma near Gaza, to appeal to the
emperor against harassment by Elias, the pro-Chalcedonian
patriarch of Jerusalem. Severus gained the ear of Anastasius. In 510,
as a result of a dispute between Patriarch Flavian II of Antioch and
his metropolitan, Philoxenus of Mabboug (Hierapolis) in
Mesopotamia, the emperor promulgated the Formula of Satisfaction.
This document, while explicitly accepting the Henoticon as the basis
of orthodoxy, denounced the Tome of Leo and the acknowledgment
of the incarnate Christ "in two natures," and downgraded Chalcedon
to the level of a disciplinary synod (or, according to some sources,
denouncing the Definition of Chalcedon altogether). For good
measure, it condemned the works of the Antiochene theologians
Diodorus of Tarsus and THEODORUS OF MOPSUESTIA. Then in
August 511 came the deposition, largely through the influence of
Severus, of Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople, and, early in
512, mainly through the intrigues of Philoxenus, of Flavian II. On 6
November 512, Severus was consecrated patriarch of Antioch. The
empire had taken a long step toward accepting monophysitism as its
faith.
Severus of Antioch and the Consolidation of Monophysite
Theology (510-530)
The activities of Severus as patriarch mark the transition
between anti-Chalcedonianism and monophysitism. He provided
opponents of Chalcedon with a clear-cut alternative theology that
justified rejection of the Tome and the council. His organizing
ability resulted, even against his will, in a rival Monophysite
hierarchy challenging that of the Chalcedonians in many parts of the
empire.
Severus is one of the great figures in the religious history of the
eastern Mediterranean. He was born into a wealthy landowning
family in Sozopolis in Pisidia, in Asia Minor, about 465. His
grandfather had been among the 200 bishops who had deposed
Nestorius at Ephesus. Severus, however, showed little inclination to
follow any profession other than law until 488, when he met the
famous anti-Chalcedonian ascetic and leader Peter the Iberian and
was converted by him to a life dedicated to the service of Christ.
After a stay at the monastery of Romanus in the Palestine wilderness
near Elentheropolis, he went about 500 to Peter's monastery at
Mayuma. He became, if not leader, spokesman of the anti-
Chalcedonian cause.
The theology of Severus, as revealed in his letters and treatises
(largely in the Patrologia Orientalis and Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium), was based on that of Cyril. In a
moment of enthusiasm, Severus wrote that every utterance of Cyril
should be regarded as canonical (Select Letters 1.9, p. 45). At the
same time, he guided the anti-Chalcedonian cause away from
support of Eutyches, and he criticized Dioscorus as "contentious"
and prone to "fighting unnecessarily about words" (Ad Nephalium,
ed. Lebon, 1949, p. 9 of translation). His Christological beliefs,
repeated time and again, might be summed up thus: "The Fathers
have taught us that God the Word, the Unique One begotten by his
Father without beginning, eternally, impassibly, and incorporeally,
did in the last times for our salvation take flesh of the Holy Spirit
and of the Holy Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, flesh
consubstantial with us, animated by an intelligent and reasoning
soul" (Severus Philalèthe, p. 107). It was obvious, Severus went on,
"that the same being is at once God and man, consubstantial with the
Father according to His divinity and with us men according to His
humanity" (p. 113). Christ was united "with the flesh of our nature"
(Epistle 65, PO 14, p. 30). This was "the royal road" of truth from
which no deviation was permissible.
Severus was not hostile to the Roman see; indeed, he praised
Pope Julius for his sane and orthodox views. But he was irrevocably
opposed to Pope Leo and his Tome. In his view, Leo not only had
divided the natures of Christ but also had made each nature quote
Scripture against the other, one declaring "I and my Father are one"
and the other, "the Father is greater than I." Such teaching he
considered fallacious and heretical (Liber . . . grammaticum 3.1.5,
ed. Lebon, pp. 49-50 of translation). Elsewhere he denounced the
Tome as "Jewish" (Epistle 46, PO 12.2, p. 321), and Leo himself, for
accepting the orthodoxy of the Antiochene theologians Ibas and
Theodoret as a "Nestorian" (Epistle 31, PO 12.2, p. 265). The
Council of Chalcedon, by adopting the "two natures" formula, was
in error and had "innovated" the ever sacred Nicene Creed (Epistle
34, PO 12.2, p. 272). This was the theologian who became patriarch
of Antioch in November 512. During a reign of less than six years
his tireless energy propagated the anti-Chalcedonian faith from one
end of the vast diocese to the other.
In this effort, Severus was aided powerfully by Philoxenus of
Mabboug, whose monophysitism differed from his. Philoxenus was
Syriac in speech and culture, and the mold in which his ideas were
formed was Syriac, not Greek. Some aspects of his Christology
approximated the Antiochene views, which he abominated. Thus, he
believed in the complete and individual manhood of Jesus,
emphasizing that He came under the law who "had become by his
will a man who served the law" (Vaschalde, 1961, p. 184). He
criticized the Apollinarians, using the same argument as the
Cappadocian fathers, that if the Word did not assume a human mind,
the human mind could not be saved.
How, then, did Philoxenus avoid acceptance of the Chalcedonian
position? Emotion played its part, but on analysis, his theology, if
somewhat forced, was consistent. Christ is God the Word, who,
however, existed in two modes of being simultaneously: as God by
nature and as man by a miracle. The manhood was added to the
Godhead so as to preserve the true features of man and at the same
time retain the nature of the Word. Through faith one appreciated
the resulting single hypostasis of the incarnate Christ. By analogy
man, by nature human, was born a son of God by receiving the
Spirit in baptism (Vaschalde, p. 120). The emphasis on baptism, the
source of newness and salvation for Christ as well as for ordinary
men, was also Antiochene in inspiration. Metaphysical concepts had
less place in Philoxenus' system than in that of Severus, but he was
at one with Severus in his opposition to the Tome and Chalcedon.
The years of the patriarchate of Severus were stormy. Though he
and Philoxenus engineered the removal of Elias, patriarch of
Jerusalem, on 1 September 516, opposition increased among the
Greek cities of western Syria, while the passion of Severus for
doctrinal "accuracy" began to dismay his followers. In 517 a rift, not
the last, appeared between the Severan and Alexandrian
Monophysites, DIOSCORUS II of Alexandria showing himself less
anxious than Severus formally to denounce Chalcedon (see Severus
Epistles 49-50, PO 12.2, pp. 323-25). At the end of the same year,
207 monks from monasteries in western Syria, led by Alexander,
presbyter and archimandrate of Maro, wrote to Pope Hormisdas,
attacking Severus for his "daily denunciation of Chalcedon" (Epistle
139). Conflict was growing throughout the patriarchate of Antioch
when Emperor Anastasius died in July 518. The reaction against
Severus was immediate. In September 518 he left Antioch to find
refuge in Alexandria, never to return.
The Chalcedonian Reaction (518-532)
The accession of Emperor JUSTIN I brought a complete change
of direction in the religious policy of the empire. Justin came from
the residual Latin-speaking provinces, and he aimed to restore
communion between the "two Romes" on the basis of mutual
acceptance of Chalcedon and the removal, so far as possible, of
traces of the Acacian Schism. At the emperor's urgent request, papal
legates arrived on 25 March 519 in Constantinople, where they were
rapturously received. On 28 March, the long dead anti-Chalcedonian
leaders in Alexandria and Antioch "and their followers," as well as
Acacius and his four successors as patriarch of Constantinople and
the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, were struck from the diptychs.
The papal victory, however, turned out to be less complete than it
seemed, for the initiative remained with the emperor, and Rome had
received no satisfaction over Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.
Justin had no intention of allowing his patriarch to be
humiliated. He aimed simply at restoring the status quo ante
Acacium, and he largely succeeded. The end of the Acacian Schism,
however, entailed close collaboration between Rome and
Constantinople and consequently heavy pressure against the
followers of Severus. Between 519 and 522, no fewer than fifty-five
bishops suspected of Monophysite leanings were deposed—some,
like Philoxenus, to die in exile.
For the Monophysites, the reign of Justin and the first years of
that of his nephew JUSTINIAN were important for two
developments—a quarrel between Severus and his fellow exile
JULIAN, bishop of Halicarnassus, in Caria; and the taking of the
first steps to establish a hierarchy loyal to the one-nature
Christology and, hence, out of communion with the Chalcedonians.
In the quarrel the Julianists held that while Christ was indeed
consubstantial with man, this related to His assumption of Adam's
nature before the Fall. Therefore, the flesh of the incarnate Christ
was not mortal. This Severus denied (Epistle 35 to the Eastern
monks, PO 12. 2, p. 290), but Julian's views made headway in Egypt
and were to influence the Monophysite missionary movement.
The move to establish a hierarchy favoring one nature was the
result of popular pressure in Syria on Severus. Sixty years later, the
Monophysite historian John of Ephesus described how the first
ordinations came about. In his Life of John of Tella, who had
ordained him deacon, he wrote:
At the end of ten years of persecution [i.e., 529/530] the faithful who
remained in diverse places began to be concerned about ordinations
and consulted the faithful bishops; but these latter feared to bring
down on themselves even fiercer flames of persecution, and they
refused to make ordinations openly, but only some in secret. Then
complaints of the faithful persecuted arose from all sides against the
blessed bishops because of the great deficiency of clerics and they
wrote and besought the bishops to make ordinations of the faithful for
the matter was urgent [Lives of the Eastern Saints, pp. 515-16].
Severus and his colleagues in Alexandria bowed to John's
arguments. The effect was sensational. Hundreds sought ordination
from him. According to John of Ephesus, "Every day fifty, a
hundred and sometimes as many as two hundred or three hundred
men, came to him for ordination." It was like a "flooded river that
had burst its banks." Postulants came from all over the Eastern
Roman Empire—from Cappadocia, Phoenicia, and the Persian
frontier. Though no episcopal consecrations had been carried out,
the Monophysite church had now come into being.
Another Monophysite biographer of John of Tella, Elias, writing
after 542, claims that the success of John's mission persuaded
Emperor Justinian to stay the persecution begun by Justin and
attempt to heal the widening rift between the Chalcedonians and
their opponents by means of a conference. Recently discovered
Syriac material relating to the conference that Justinian summoned
in 532 suggests the truth of this estimate (see Brock, 1980, pp. 219-
28).
The conference took the form of a series of meetings in
Constantinople between six representatives from each side and
extended over "a year or more" (Zacharias Rhetor, 9.15, p. 84),
probably February 532 to March 533. Severus did not attend. Quite
rightly, he expressed distrust of Justinian, but he sent a long
memorandum to the emperor emphasizing his own loyalty and that
of his colleagues and arguing for the acceptance of the one-nature
Christology as the religion of the empire. One phase of the
discussions, recorded by Innocentius of Maronia of the
Chalcedonian delegation, shows how the Chalcedonians were able
to entangle their opponents in their inconsistent attitude toward
Eutyches but could not prove that Cyril would have accepted
Chalcedon. On matters of faith, the two sides were very near
agreement on the Theopaschite formula put forward by Justinian
himself: that both the miracles and the sufferings of Christ were to
be attributed to one and the same being, and thus "he who suffered
in the flesh was one of the Trinity." But the disciplinary issue (as in
most ecclesiastical disputes) proved insurmountable. Justinian
insisted on acceptance of Chalcedon in some form (but not of the
Tome of Leo), and this the followers of Severus were not prepared to
give.
Severus' Last Triumph and Condemnation (534-538)
The edict that Justinian published on 15 March 533 condemned
Eutyches, Apollinaris, and Nestorius but not Severus and his
colleagues. In Alexandria, conflict between Severus and the
supporters of Julian of Halicarnassus increased, while in
Constantinople, Empress THEODORA, her influence enhanced
after the Nika Riot in January 532, worked for the Monophysites. In
the winter of 534/535, Severus accepted an invitation from the
emperor, instigated by the empress, to come to Constantinople
(Zacharias Rhetor Historia, 9.15). In the summer of 535, Severus
persuaded the new patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimus, of the
rightness of the Monophysite cause. For a few months the sees of
Alexandria and Constantinople were reunited in communion and
theological outlook. Once again, however, the counterattraction of
the bond between Constantinople and Rome proved too strong. Pope
Agapetus, on a visit to Constantinople on behalf of King Theodahad,
the Gothic ruler of Italy, deposed Anthimus for having accepted
translation from his original see of Trebizond, contrary to Canon 15
of the Council of Nicaea. On 13 March Agapetus consecrated
Anthimus' successor, the Alexandria-born Menas. A letter signed by
Justinian and Agapetus reemphasized the orthodoxy of the twonature
Christology. In May-June 536 an impressive local synod
convoked by Menas condemned both Anthimus and Severus as
heretics. The emperor confirmed the decision and on August 6
published an edict (Justinianus, 42, no. 56) accusing Severus of
waging "undeclared war" and setting the churches against each
other. His writings were proscribed. From then on, efforts to reunite
Chalcedonians and Monophysites were doomed. The years 536-538
saw another severe persecution of Monophysite clergy. Among the
victims was John of Tella.
The Monophysite Missions (542-565)
Justinian followed up the condemnation of Severus by another
blow at the Monophysites, the restoration of the Chalcedonian
succession in Egypt. Toward the end of 537, he summoned Saint
THEODOSIUS I, patriarch of Alexandria, who had successfully
beaten off a Julianist challenge on his accession in 535, to
Constantinople and declared him deposed. Theodosius was
imprisoned at Derkos in Thrace. Thereupon the emperor had a
Pachomian monk named Paul consecrated as patriarch of Alexandria
by Menas. When Paul proved unsatisfactory, he was succeeded by a
Palestinian monk named Zoilus (c. 540). Thanks largely to
Theodora, the Monophysites were able to reply effectively. First, the
empress secured the return of Theodosius to Constantinople, where
he established a Monophysite presence under her patronage in the
palace of Hormisdas. In 541, taking advantage of a request by the
powerful ruler of the Ghassanid confederation of Arab tribes on
Rome's southeastern frontier for an "orthodox bishop," the empress
persuaded Theodosius to consecrate JACOB BORADAEUS, an east
Syrian, as metropolitan of Edessa, and Theodorus as bishop of
Bostra, the capital of the Roman province of Arabia.
Jacob Baradaeus (James Bar ’Adai) will always be associated
with the consolidation of monophysitism in Syria and Mesopotamia.
In fact, his original mission was not confined to these provinces or
identified with them. He was vested with authority "over all
countries not only of Syria and the whole of Armenia and
Cappadocia" but also over Isauria, Lycia, Phrygia, Cyprus, and the
islands. His was to be a roving commission devoted to the
maintenance of individual Monophysite congregations, wherever
they might be. The enormous energy of Jacob and his dedication to
his task transformed the situation. Between 542 and 578 he moved
from place to place: "sometimes travelling thirty or forty miles a
day, never staying long in any one district, he added to the numbers
of believers in every place, both Greeks and Syrians" (John of
Ephesus, LIVES OF THE EASTERN SAINTS, Vol. 18, col. 693;
cf. col. 695). He consecrated bishops as well as lower clergy,
"causing the priesthood to flow like great rivers over the whole
world of the Roman domains." His successes, especially in eastern
Syria, indicated both the underlying anti-Chalcedonian sentiment of
the mass of the people and their readiness, at least in matters of
belief, to oppose the will of the emperor. Constantinople, however,
remained the center of the movement and Patriarch Theodosius its
focus.
Similar trends can be seen in the second great Monophysite
missionary saga, the conversion of the Nobatian kingdoms (see
NOBATIA) south of the Roman frontier in Egypt. Christianity had
spread into NUBIA by the mid-fifth century (Michalowski, 1970, p.
12), but the conversion of the Nobatian court and kingdom was the
work of Monophysite missionaries sent by Theodora in 542 under
the presbyter Julian. The Nobatian king (not Silko—as once thought
[see Skeat, 1977, pp. 159-70; Rea, 1979, pp. 147-50]) was converted
to monophysitism and defied the later efforts of the orthodox envoys
sent by Justinian to change his mind. "We accept the gift of the king
of the Romans," he is reported to have said, "but his faith we will
not accept. If we deserve to become Christians we will follow after
the Pope Theodosius, whom because he would not accept the evil
faith of the king he expelled and ejected." Julian had done his work
of conversion well.
Though MAKOURIA, the middle of the three Nobatian
kingdoms, was converted to Chalcedon about 567, this was a
temporary phase; by the time of the Arab invasions, the vast
majority of the populations of Nobatia, of Egypt, and of Ethiopia
were Monophysite. Parts of southern Arabia and the kingdom of
Armenia were also Monophysite.
From the early eighth century on, the Nobatian kingdoms
produced a brillant Christian art, of which FARAS has provided the
most splendid examples (see Michalowski, 1974). Fragments of a
handsomely produced manuscript of the liturgy of Saint James and
manuscripts of the Greek Acta Mercurii and Acta Georgii have been
found in the cathedral church at Qasr Ibrim.
Relations with the Empire up to the Arab Conquests (536-641)
Justinian's condemnation of Severus in 536 marked a watershed
in the history of monophysitism. Up to then the Monophysites had
aimed at converting the empire to their view within the framework
of a united church. Now they were obliged to accept the fact of
schism whose healing would require the abrogation of a conciliar
decision against Severus, as well as denunciation of the Tome and
Chalcedon. Moreover, with the capture of Rome, on 9 December
536, by the Byzantine general Belisarius, the Roman bishops
became the emperor's subjects once more, and their influence in
Constantinople correspondingly increased. Finally, in Monophysitedominated
areas, the Tome and Chalcedon had become objects of
popular dislike. When, near the end of Justinian's reign, Bishop
Abraham bar Kaili tried to proclaim the decisions of Chalcedon at
the fortress town of Amida, the people shouted, "We will never
accept the synod and the Tome," and they rioted against the bishop
and the magistrates. Chalcedon had become a name of ill omen.
Despite these factors making for continued schism, the personal
relations between leading Monophysites and Justinian and his two
immediate successors, Justin II and Tiberius II, remained reasonably
friendly. A striking example is Justinian's use in 542 of John of
Ephesus as a missionary to surviving pockets of paganism in
western Asia Minor. John was so successful that it was recorded that
70,000 converts were baptized, and ninety-eight churches and
twelve monasteries were built for their use. This success, however,
did not prevent his being a prolific propagandist for monophysitism
and becoming Monophysite archbishop of Ephesus in 558. In
addition, Sophia, the consort of Justin II, was a friend of the
Monophysites at court.
After 536, however, all efforts to heal the breach had a
depressing similarity of high hopes succeeded by failure and
disillusion.
First, the "Three Chapters" controversy and the Second Council
of Constantinople in 553 were less concerned with monophysitism
than with the relations between Constantinople and Rome. While the
writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, the works of THEODORET,
bishop of Cyrrhus, against Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, and the letter
of Ibas to the presbyter Maris criticizing Cyril's theology were
condemned, the key Monophysite tenet that "out of the two natures"
there resulted "one" was also anathematized. Orthodoxy was now
enthroned on neo-Chalcedonian principles. Monophysitism had been
overtaken by new orthodox thought pioneered by Leontius of
Byzantium (see Meyendorff, 1975, pp. 74-85).
Second, at the Conference of Callinicum in 568, the
Monophysites were offered a compromise by Emperor Justin II. The
sole faith was that of the Nicene Creed. Christ was to be confessed
as "out of two natures one hypostasis and one persona," the "Three
Chapters" were to remain condemned, and the edict against Severus
would be abrogated. Jacob Baradaeus was ready to accept, but his
and other leaders' efforts to persuade the monks of the orthodoxy of
the statement without the explicit condemnation of Chalcedon
failed.
Third, the second Henoticon, of 571, was the final attempt by
Justin II to secure agreement with the Monophysites on the basis of
acknowledgment of Christ as "one Son, one person, one subsistence,
both God and man together," and the confession of "one incarnate
nature of the God-Logos" But again, since there was no
denunciation of Chalcedon, it failed.
The reign of the emperor Maurice, beginning in 582, saw a
renewal of persecution of the Monophysites, especially in Syria.
When Maurice was murdered by Phocas, who became emperor in
602, and the Persians invaded the empire, Monophysite opposition
to the imperial government began to harden. The seventh-century
chronicler JOHN OF NIKIOU commented on the disasters that
befell the empire: "This chastisement has befallen the earth owing to
the heresy of the emperor Maurice." Though the Persians were no
light taskmasters, the Monophysites found it was possible to retain
religious liberty under a foreign power, not least because the policy
of Chosroes II was to give them the status of a majority religion in
the Roman territory his armies occupied.
This policy was wise, for during the sixth century economic
changes had been taking place in Egypt and Syria that had
enormously increased the influence of the monasteries over the lives
of the rural population. In northern Syria, where monophysitism was
already strong, fieldwork by French archaeologists has established
that areas once dominated by large landed proprietors had in the
sixth century been transformed into villages where land was held by
individual families engaged in olive culture closely associated with
monasteries. In Egypt, monastic lands were even more extensive,
and the dependence of the peasants on the monasteries was
accordingly greater. Tradition preserved in the HISTORY OF THE
PATRIARCHS speaks of an area near Alexandria where "there are
600 flourishing monasteries, all inhabited by the orthodox," and
their cultivators "all held the true faith." This was the rock on which
all attempts by Justinian and his successors to convert Egypt to
Chalcedonianism foundered.
The victory of the emperor Heraclius over the Persians in 627-
630 gave the empire a final chance of settling with the
Monophysites. The emperor's acceptance of the Monenergist creed,
that in Christ there was one source of activity or energeia (see
MONENERGISM), came as near success as any of Justinian's and
Justin II's efforts, especially in Syria. In Egypt, however, incipient
goodwill was gradually eroded and then destroyed by the highhandedness
and duplicity of Cyrus, the emperor's choice for civil
governor and patriarch. When in 634 Heraclius was forced to
withdraw his project of unity on the basis of Monenergism owing to
the opposition of Pope Honorius and Sophronius, patriarch of
Jerusalem, the last hope of accord ended. Cyrus the Caucasian's
arbitrary rule alienated the Copts: "Sullen gloom descended on the
land" (Butler, 1902, p. 191). By 639, when the Arab armies arrived
in Egypt, they were ready to change masters.
Monophysitism must be regarded mainly as a religious dispute
within the framework of Byzantine Christianity. No social cleavage
divided its adherents from those of Chalcedon. Families rather than
clans were divided. Regional identities, except in Egypt, were slow
to form. While eventually monophysitism served as a focus for
discontent with the imperial government, it was far from being the
Byzantine equivalent of North African DONATISM. The key to its
territorial consolidation in both Egypt and Syria is to be found in the
great influence of the Monophysite monasteries on the lives of the
ordinary people, especially on the land. The combination of popular
religious devotion and economic changes that favored the growth of
vast monastic estates contributed to the victory of monophysitism in
Syria and Egypt in the sixth century. Thus the dispute "over a single
letter" (Evagrius, 2.5), the difference between HOMOOUSION (of
one substance) and HOMOIOUSION (of like substance), ultimately
proved insoluble.
W. H. C. FREND

(CE: 1669a-1678a)
MONOPHYSITISM, the doctrine that the incarnate Christ is one
Person and has one divine nature as opposed to the orthodox
doctrine that he is one Person and has two natures, one human and
one divine. The rift between the Monophysites, including the
Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches, and the
Orthodox Church has divided Eastern Christianity since the sixth
century. It emerged slowly after the Council of CHALCEDON in
451. The Monophysites hold firm to the main Christological tenant
of Saint CYRIL I, early fifth-century patriarch of Alexandria, that
the two natures of Christ were united at the Incarnation in such a
way that the one Christ was essentially divine, although he assumed
from the Virgin THEOTOKOS the flesh and attributes of a man.
The Period Before Chalcedon (325-451)
The distant origins of the Monophysite position can be found in
John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"), but no
theological issue arose until after the First Council of NICAEA in
325, at which it was agreed that Christ was to be acknowledged as
"of one substance with the Father." If, however, He was of one
substance (HOMOOUSION) with the Father, how was His
humanity to be understood? The long duration of the controversy
over ARIANISM, which denied that Christ was divine, masked the
problem, but during the 370s Apollinaris of Laodicea, an anti-Arian
and a lifelong friend of Saint ATHANASIUS I, patriarch of
Alexandria, set out a radical and uncompromising solution (see
APOLLINARIANISM). "The supreme point in our salvation," he
argued, "is the incarnation of the Word. We believe therefore that
with no change in his Godhead, the incarnation of the Word took
palce for the renewal of man." "We confess therefore," he told the
bishops of Syria at Diocaesarea, "that [the] Word of God . . . has
become flesh without having assumed a human mind, i.e., a mind
changeable and enslaved to filthy thoughts, but existing as a divine
mind, immutable and heavenly." Therefore, "We confess that . . . the
one Son is not two natures, one to be worshipped and one without
worship, but one incarnate nature of God the Word to be worshipped
with His flesh in one worship" (Lietzmann, 1904, pp. 178, 250).
Apollinarius' ideas struck an immediate response throughout the
East, and though they were condemned as unorthodox at the First
Council of CONSTANTINOPLE in 381, a large number of tracts
setting out his views were circulating at the end of the century under
the names of orthodox theologians, including Pope Saint Julius I and
Athanasius. These "Apollinarian forgeries" had an enormous effect
on the development of monophysitism, not least in contributing
toward the formation of Cyril of Alexandria's concept of the Person
of Christ.
Cyril's Christology was influenced by both genuine and false
Athanasian writings, and as his controversy with the Antiochene
monk NESTORIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, quickened, the
Monophysite element came increasingly to the fore. In his third
letter to Nestorius, who held that Christ was two separate persons,
he spoke of "the One Hypostasis ["Person"] Incarnate of the Word";
and in the third of the Twelve Anathemas appended to this letter he
declared anathema "anyone who divides the hypostases after the
union." There was "One Lord Jesus Christ," according to the
Scriptures.
The Council of EPHESUS in 431 condemned Nestorius but did
not declare Cyril's anathemas canonical. Two years later, in April
433, Cyril was obliged to come to terms with the Antiochenes and in
the formula of reunion to accept the orthodoxy of those who spoke
in terms of "two natures." This was a victory for Antiochene
theology and a reverse for the Alexandrians. Cyril's successor,
DIOSCORUS I, was determined to restore Alexandria's now
traditional status as "city of the orthodox." In Constantinople he
found an ally in the archimandrite EUTYCHES. The latter,
however, pushed his fear of two-nature Christology further than
Cyril would have allowed, asserting that the flesh of Christ was
God-made, so that Christ could in no sense be "consubstantial with
us." Eutyches was deposed on 22 November 448 by a synod
presided over by Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople.
Eutyches appealed to the councils of the other archiepiscopal
sees and to the church in Ravenna (the imperial residence in the
West) against his sentence. Annoyed by the quarrel between Flavian
and Eutyches, and fearing a revival of Nestorianism, Emperor
Theodosius II, who was now strongly Cyrilist in his theology,
convoked the Second council of Ephesus in 449 to judge the case of
Eutyches and to decide whether his deposition by Flavian had been
just. Dioscorus was to preside. Once again, the Apollinarian
forgeries played a crucial part in channeling doctrinal views in the
East toward a one-nature Christology. Eutyches produced texts,
accepted at Ephesus in 431 as genuine, of documents written
ostensibly by Pope Julius and Gregory the Wonderworker to support
his case. The council was entranced. "Two natures before the union,
and one afterward. Is that not what we all believe?" asked
Dioscorus. A long epistle from Pope LEO THE GREAT, known to
history as the Tome of Leo, written to support Flavian, asserted
exactly the opposite view. It was left unread. The council vindicated
Eutyches and condemned as troublemakers Flavian and the
archbishop of Antioch, Domnus, who had attempted to innovate
statements of the Council of Nicaea. The sentence was confirmed by
Theodosius.
The emperor's sudden death on 28 July 450 transformed the
situation. His successor, Marcian, married Theodosius' pro-Roman
sister PULCHERIA, and in the autumn of 451 they summoned
another ecumenical council, this one at Chalcedon. It had two aims:
to define the faith in a way that would restore communion between
Rome and the other patriarchates and to vindicate the position of the
see of Constantinople vis-à-vis all other sees in the East, particularly
that of Alexandria.
The council achieved both objectives. Dioscorus was
excommunicated and deposed—not, however, for doctrinal heresy
but for ecclesiastical indiscipline. The Definition of Chalcedon was
accepted, a statement of faith declaring that Jesus Christ was "made
known to us in two Natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably,
indivisibly, inseparably: the difference of the natures being in no
way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each
nature being preserved and concurring into one Prosopon and one
Hypostasis. . . ." Though the framers of the Definition intended a
careful balance between opposing Christologies, the wording
favored the Tome of Leo and the Antiochene cause. While Pope Leo
accepted the Definition, he rejected Canon 28 of the council, which
restated the primatial rights of Constantinople as the "New Rome."
Rome objected to the omission in the canon of any reference to the
apostolic and Petrine character of the see of Rome and was never
prepared to concede patriarchal status to its sister see of New Rome
(Constantinople). This canon, however, was all-important to
Constantinople, and for this reason, it could never entirely renounce
the Council of Chalcedon.
The arrogant behavior of Dioscorus had created a rift among the
seventeen Egyptian bishops who accompanied him to Chalcedon.
While the majority stood by their archbishop out of fear and loyalty,
four sided with the majority at the council, accepted the
Christological definition, and took part in the consecration of the
archpriest Proterius as successor of Dioscorus.
From Chalcedon to the Henoticon of Zeno (451-482)
Although the Definition of Chalcedon was well received in
Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and throughout the European
provinces of the empire, there was deep disquiet elsewhere. Clergy
and laity alike found it difficult to understand how opinions
accepted by 135 bishops only two years before Ephesus II should
now be regarded as heretical, and why Dioscorus should have been
excommunicated by many of the same bishops who previously had
applauded him. There were serious riots in Alexandria and in
Jerusalem, where Bishop Juvenal, an ally of Dioscorus who had
abandoned him at Chalcedon, was forced to flee the city (Zacharias
Rhetor, 3. 2; Liberatus, 14. 99; Evagrius, 2. 5). Something of the
intensity of popular feeling in many parts of the East against
Chalcedon has been caught by JOHN OF MAYUMA in his
Plerophoria (Witnesses), compiled about 512, in which he branded
as traitors and apostates those who had supported Chalcedon.
Although imperial troops suppressed the riots and Juvenal
returned to Jerusalem, Proterius failed to gain support in Egypt.
Opposition to Chalcedon coalesced around one of the priests of
Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus ("the Cat") (later TIMOTHY II
AELURUS) and the deacon Peter Mongus ("the Hoarse One") (later
Peter II Mongus), both future patriarchs. As soon as the news of the
death of Marcian reached Alexandria, there was a popular uprising
against Proterius. Timothy was consecrated bishop on 16 March 457
or 458, and on 28 March Proterius was lynched. There was now a
schism between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians in Egypt.
The schism lasted until 482. In 459 Timothy Aelurus was
ordered into exile in Kherson in the Crimea by the new emperor,
Leo I, who was responding to episcopal opinion throughout the rest
of the empire (see Zacharias Rhetor, 4.5-7, Brooks ed., pp. 121-24;
and Schwartz, 1914, 2.v.). In 460 the Proterians elected as successor
to Proterius, who had died, the Pachomian monk TIMOTHY
SALOFACIOLUS ("Wobble Cap"). The death of Leo in January
474 gave Timothy Aelurus his chance. Leo's son, Leo II, died in
November, and his successor, Zeno, was unpopular. Timothy took
advantage of Basiliscus' revolution against Zeno, in January 475, to
leave his place of exile and make for Constantinople. There he was
favored by the usurper and restored as patriarch of Alexandria.
Basiliscus published an encyclical condemning the Tome of Leo and
all things of Chalcedon that "innovated against the holy creed of the
38 holy fathers [of Nicaea]" (Evagrius, 3.4, 3.7). Up to this point,
neither the Alexandrian opponents of Chalcedon nor their allies
elsewhere, the Diakrimonenoi (Hesitants), contemplated a division
in the church. Their aims were the acceptance by the empire of
Cyril's teaching in its fullness, the denunciation of the Tome of Leo,
and the reduction of the status of Chalcedon to that of a disciplinary
synod (like Ephesus II) anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches.
Basiliscus had been ready to comply.
Basiliscus fell, largely owing to the opposition of Acacius,
patriarch of Constantinople, who was supported by the people of the
capital and spurred on by Daniel the Stylite (Evagrius, 3.7). Zeno
returned in triumph in August 476, but he recognized that the empire
must come to terms with ever increasing anti-Chalcedonian feeling
in Egypt, parts of western and southern Asia Minor, and now in
Syria, where, opponents of the council had found a leader in Peter
the Fuller. After the death of Timothy II Aleurus, and of his rival in
February 482, the emperor and his patriarch addressed a letter to
"the bishops, monks and laity of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrenaica"
with the aim of achieving an acceptable compromise.
The HENOTICON (Instrument of Unity) of 28 July 482 went as
far as possible to conciliate the anti-Chalcedonians without
explicitly denouncing Chalcedon (for the full text, see Schwartz,
1927, pp. 924-27). The safety of the Roman world was asserted to
rest on a universal acceptance of the Nicene Creed confirmed by the
Council of Constantinople (381). Eutyches and Nestorius were
condemned, but the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril were upheld, and
Christ incarnate from the Virgin was to be acknowledged "as one
and not two, for we say that both His miracles and His sufferings
which He willingly underwent in the flesh are of one person. Every
person, who has thought or thinks anything else now or at any time
either in Chalcedon or in any other synod whatever, we
anathematize."
Though in form the emperor had merely written a letter to the
patriarchate of Alexandria, the Henoticon marks another important
step in consolidating the emperor's role as divinely appointed
governor of all Christians. For the next thirty-five years the
Henoticon was accepted as a statement of belief by the churches in
the East. Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were
again in communion.
The Acacian Schism
The Eastern patriarchates were not, however, on good terms with
Rome. A quarrel developed between Pope Simplicius and Acacius,
patriarch of Constantinople (see ACACIAN SCHISM), not over the
Henotican but because Acacius accepted Peter Mongus as patriarch
of Alexandria, although he had previously denounced him to the
pope as a "son of darkness" and unfit even for his original office as
deacon (Simplicius to Acacius, Epistulae; see also Frend, 1972, pp.
181-83).
The issue between Rome and Constantinople was primarily
disciplinary, but the Henoticon added fuel to the fire and to the
Acacian schism, which lasted until 519. In this period pro- and anti-
Chalcedonian sentiment in the empire gradually crystallized. By
about 500 the majority of the clergy and people of Constantinople
and the European provinces of the empire were Chalcedonian,
together with northern Asia Minor, western Syria (where the
influence of the Greek cities was strong), and Palestine (where the
monks were of various national origins and needed the emperor's
military support for their survival against Saracen marauders and
Jewish and Samaritan enmity). Egypt, Antioch, eastern Syria and
Mesopotamia, and the provinces of Isauria and Pamphylia in
southern Asia Minor were anti-Chalcedonian. Western Asia Minor
with Ephesus was sharply divided. Emperor Anastasius, though
personally inclined to monophysitism, steered a middle line by
insisting on unreserved respect for the Henoticon.
In 508, however, a new situation began to develop with the
arrival in Constantinople of the Monophysite monk Severus, on
mission from the monastery of Mayuma near Gaza, to appeal to the
emperor against harassment by Elias, the pro-Chalcedonian
patriarch of Jerusalem. Severus gained the ear of Anastasius. In 510,
as a result of a dispute between Patriarch Flavian II of Antioch and
his metropolitan, Philoxenus of Mabboug (Hierapolis) in
Mesopotamia, the emperor promulgated the Formula of Satisfaction.
This document, while explicitly accepting the Henoticon as the basis
of orthodoxy, denounced the Tome of Leo and the acknowledgment
of the incarnate Christ "in two natures," and downgraded Chalcedon
to the level of a disciplinary synod (or, according to some sources,
denouncing the Definition of Chalcedon altogether). For good
measure, it condemned the works of the Antiochene theologians
Diodorus of Tarsus and THEODORUS OF MOPSUESTIA. Then in
August 511 came the deposition, largely through the influence of
Severus, of Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople, and, early in
512, mainly through the intrigues of Philoxenus, of Flavian II. On 6
November 512, Severus was consecrated patriarch of Antioch. The
empire had taken a long step toward accepting monophysitism as its
faith.
Severus of Antioch and the Consolidation of Monophysite
Theology (510-530)
The activities of Severus as patriarch mark the transition
between anti-Chalcedonianism and monophysitism. He provided
opponents of Chalcedon with a clear-cut alternative theology that
justified rejection of the Tome and the council. His organizing
ability resulted, even against his will, in a rival Monophysite
hierarchy challenging that of the Chalcedonians in many parts of the
empire.
Severus is one of the great figures in the religious history of the
eastern Mediterranean. He was born into a wealthy landowning
family in Sozopolis in Pisidia, in Asia Minor, about 465. His
grandfather had been among the 200 bishops who had deposed
Nestorius at Ephesus. Severus, however, showed little inclination to
follow any profession other than law until 488, when he met the
famous anti-Chalcedonian ascetic and leader Peter the Iberian and
was converted by him to a life dedicated to the service of Christ.
After a stay at the monastery of Romanus in the Palestine wilderness
near Elentheropolis, he went about 500 to Peter's monastery at
Mayuma. He became, if not leader, spokesman of the anti-
Chalcedonian cause.
The theology of Severus, as revealed in his letters and treatises
(largely in the Patrologia Orientalis and Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium), was based on that of Cyril. In a
moment of enthusiasm, Severus wrote that every utterance of Cyril
should be regarded as canonical (Select Letters 1.9, p. 45). At the
same time, he guided the anti-Chalcedonian cause away from
support of Eutyches, and he criticized Dioscorus as "contentious"
and prone to "fighting unnecessarily about words" (Ad Nephalium,
ed. Lebon, 1949, p. 9 of translation). His Christological beliefs,
repeated time and again, might be summed up thus: "The Fathers
have taught us that God the Word, the Unique One begotten by his
Father without beginning, eternally, impassibly, and incorporeally,
did in the last times for our salvation take flesh of the Holy Spirit
and of the Holy Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, flesh
consubstantial with us, animated by an intelligent and reasoning
soul" (Severus Philalèthe, p. 107). It was obvious, Severus went on,
"that the same being is at once God and man, consubstantial with the
Father according to His divinity and with us men according to His
humanity" (p. 113). Christ was united "with the flesh of our nature"
(Epistle 65, PO 14, p. 30). This was "the royal road" of truth from
which no deviation was permissible.
Severus was not hostile to the Roman see; indeed, he praised
Pope Julius for his sane and orthodox views. But he was irrevocably
opposed to Pope Leo and his Tome. In his view, Leo not only had
divided the natures of Christ but also had made each nature quote
Scripture against the other, one declaring "I and my Father are one"
and the other, "the Father is greater than I." Such teaching he
considered fallacious and heretical (Liber . . . grammaticum 3.1.5,
ed. Lebon, pp. 49-50 of translation). Elsewhere he denounced the
Tome as "Jewish" (Epistle 46, PO 12.2, p. 321), and Leo himself, for
accepting the orthodoxy of the Antiochene theologians Ibas and
Theodoret as a "Nestorian" (Epistle 31, PO 12.2, p. 265). The
Council of Chalcedon, by adopting the "two natures" formula, was
in error and had "innovated" the ever sacred Nicene Creed (Epistle
34, PO 12.2, p. 272). This was the theologian who became patriarch
of Antioch in November 512. During a reign of less than six years
his tireless energy propagated the anti-Chalcedonian faith from one
end of the vast diocese to the other.
In this effort, Severus was aided powerfully by Philoxenus of
Mabboug, whose monophysitism differed from his. Philoxenus was
Syriac in speech and culture, and the mold in which his ideas were
formed was Syriac, not Greek. Some aspects of his Christology
approximated the Antiochene views, which he abominated. Thus, he
believed in the complete and individual manhood of Jesus,
emphasizing that He came under the law who "had become by his
will a man who served the law" (Vaschalde, 1961, p. 184). He
criticized the Apollinarians, using the same argument as the
Cappadocian fathers, that if the Word did not assume a human mind,
the human mind could not be saved.
How, then, did Philoxenus avoid acceptance of the Chalcedonian
position? Emotion played its part, but on analysis, his theology, if
somewhat forced, was consistent. Christ is God the Word, who,
however, existed in two modes of being simultaneously: as God by
nature and as man by a miracle. The manhood was added to the
Godhead so as to preserve the true features of man and at the same
time retain the nature of the Word. Through faith one appreciated
the resulting single hypostasis of the incarnate Christ. By analogy
man, by nature human, was born a son of God by receiving the
Spirit in baptism (Vaschalde, p. 120). The emphasis on baptism, the
source of newness and salvation for Christ as well as for ordinary
men, was also Antiochene in inspiration. Metaphysical concepts had
less place in Philoxenus' system than in that of Severus, but he was
at one with Severus in his opposition to the Tome and Chalcedon.
The years of the patriarchate of Severus were stormy. Though he
and Philoxenus engineered the removal of Elias, patriarch of
Jerusalem, on 1 September 516, opposition increased among the
Greek cities of western Syria, while the passion of Severus for
doctrinal "accuracy" began to dismay his followers. In 517 a rift, not
the last, appeared between the Severan and Alexandrian
Monophysites, DIOSCORUS II of Alexandria showing himself less
anxious than Severus formally to denounce Chalcedon (see Severus
Epistles 49-50, PO 12.2, pp. 323-25). At the end of the same year,
207 monks from monasteries in western Syria, led by Alexander,
presbyter and archimandrate of Maro, wrote to Pope Hormisdas,
attacking Severus for his "daily denunciation of Chalcedon" (Epistle
139). Conflict was growing throughout the patriarchate of Antioch
when Emperor Anastasius died in July 518. The reaction against
Severus was immediate. In September 518 he left Antioch to find
refuge in Alexandria, never to return.
The Chalcedonian Reaction (518-532)
The accession of Emperor JUSTIN I brought a complete change
of direction in the religious policy of the empire. Justin came from
the residual Latin-speaking provinces, and he aimed to restore
communion between the "two Romes" on the basis of mutual
acceptance of Chalcedon and the removal, so far as possible, of
traces of the Acacian Schism. At the emperor's urgent request, papal
legates arrived on 25 March 519 in Constantinople, where they were
rapturously received. On 28 March, the long dead anti-Chalcedonian
leaders in Alexandria and Antioch "and their followers," as well as
Acacius and his four successors as patriarch of Constantinople and
the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, were struck from the diptychs.
The papal victory, however, turned out to be less complete than it
seemed, for the initiative remained with the emperor, and Rome had
received no satisfaction over Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.
Justin had no intention of allowing his patriarch to be
humiliated. He aimed simply at restoring the status quo ante
Acacium, and he largely succeeded. The end of the Acacian Schism,
however, entailed close collaboration between Rome and
Constantinople and consequently heavy pressure against the
followers of Severus. Between 519 and 522, no fewer than fifty-five
bishops suspected of Monophysite leanings were deposed—some,
like Philoxenus, to die in exile.
For the Monophysites, the reign of Justin and the first years of
that of his nephew JUSTINIAN were important for two
developments—a quarrel between Severus and his fellow exile
JULIAN, bishop of Halicarnassus, in Caria; and the taking of the
first steps to establish a hierarchy loyal to the one-nature
Christology and, hence, out of communion with the Chalcedonians.
In the quarrel the Julianists held that while Christ was indeed
consubstantial with man, this related to His assumption of Adam's
nature before the Fall. Therefore, the flesh of the incarnate Christ
was not mortal. This Severus denied (Epistle 35 to the Eastern
monks, PO 12. 2, p. 290), but Julian's views made headway in Egypt
and were to influence the Monophysite missionary movement.
The move to establish a hierarchy favoring one nature was the
result of popular pressure in Syria on Severus. Sixty years later, the
Monophysite historian John of Ephesus described how the first
ordinations came about. In his Life of John of Tella, who had
ordained him deacon, he wrote:
At the end of ten years of persecution [i.e., 529/530] the faithful who
remained in diverse places began to be concerned about ordinations
and consulted the faithful bishops; but these latter feared to bring
down on themselves even fiercer flames of persecution, and they
refused to make ordinations openly, but only some in secret. Then
complaints of the faithful persecuted arose from all sides against the
blessed bishops because of the great deficiency of clerics and they
wrote and besought the bishops to make ordinations of the faithful for
the matter was urgent [Lives of the Eastern Saints, pp. 515-16].
Severus and his colleagues in Alexandria bowed to John's
arguments. The effect was sensational. Hundreds sought ordination
from him. According to John of Ephesus, "Every day fifty, a
hundred and sometimes as many as two hundred or three hundred
men, came to him for ordination." It was like a "flooded river that
had burst its banks." Postulants came from all over the Eastern
Roman Empire—from Cappadocia, Phoenicia, and the Persian
frontier. Though no episcopal consecrations had been carried out,
the Monophysite church had now come into being.
Another Monophysite biographer of John of Tella, Elias, writing
after 542, claims that the success of John's mission persuaded
Emperor Justinian to stay the persecution begun by Justin and
attempt to heal the widening rift between the Chalcedonians and
their opponents by means of a conference. Recently discovered
Syriac material relating to the conference that Justinian summoned
in 532 suggests the truth of this estimate (see Brock, 1980, pp. 219-
28).
The conference took the form of a series of meetings in
Constantinople between six representatives from each side and
extended over "a year or more" (Zacharias Rhetor, 9.15, p. 84),
probably February 532 to March 533. Severus did not attend. Quite
rightly, he expressed distrust of Justinian, but he sent a long
memorandum to the emperor emphasizing his own loyalty and that
of his colleagues and arguing for the acceptance of the one-nature
Christology as the religion of the empire. One phase of the
discussions, recorded by Innocentius of Maronia of the
Chalcedonian delegation, shows how the Chalcedonians were able
to entangle their opponents in their inconsistent attitude toward
Eutyches but could not prove that Cyril would have accepted
Chalcedon. On matters of faith, the two sides were very near
agreement on the Theopaschite formula put forward by Justinian
himself: that both the miracles and the sufferings of Christ were to
be attributed to one and the same being, and thus "he who suffered
in the flesh was one of the Trinity." But the disciplinary issue (as in
most ecclesiastical disputes) proved insurmountable. Justinian
insisted on acceptance of Chalcedon in some form (but not of the
Tome of Leo), and this the followers of Severus were not prepared to
give.
Severus' Last Triumph and Condemnation (534-538)
The edict that Justinian published on 15 March 533 condemned
Eutyches, Apollinaris, and Nestorius but not Severus and his
colleagues. In Alexandria, conflict between Severus and the
supporters of Julian of Halicarnassus increased, while in
Constantinople, Empress THEODORA, her influence enhanced
after the Nika Riot in January 532, worked for the Monophysites. In
the winter of 534/535, Severus accepted an invitation from the
emperor, instigated by the empress, to come to Constantinople
(Zacharias Rhetor Historia, 9.15). In the summer of 535, Severus
persuaded the new patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimus, of the
rightness of the Monophysite cause. For a few months the sees of
Alexandria and Constantinople were reunited in communion and
theological outlook. Once again, however, the counterattraction of
the bond between Constantinople and Rome proved too strong. Pope
Agapetus, on a visit to Constantinople on behalf of King Theodahad,
the Gothic ruler of Italy, deposed Anthimus for having accepted
translation from his original see of Trebizond, contrary to Canon 15
of the Council of Nicaea. On 13 March Agapetus consecrated
Anthimus' successor, the Alexandria-born Menas. A letter signed by
Justinian and Agapetus reemphasized the orthodoxy of the twonature
Christology. In May-June 536 an impressive local synod
convoked by Menas condemned both Anthimus and Severus as
heretics. The emperor confirmed the decision and on August 6
published an edict (Justinianus, 42, no. 56) accusing Severus of
waging "undeclared war" and setting the churches against each
other. His writings were proscribed. From then on, efforts to reunite
Chalcedonians and Monophysites were doomed. The years 536-538
saw another severe persecution of Monophysite clergy. Among the
victims was John of Tella.
The Monophysite Missions (542-565)
Justinian followed up the condemnation of Severus by another
blow at the Monophysites, the restoration of the Chalcedonian
succession in Egypt. Toward the end of 537, he summoned Saint
THEODOSIUS I, patriarch of Alexandria, who had successfully
beaten off a Julianist challenge on his accession in 535, to
Constantinople and declared him deposed. Theodosius was
imprisoned at Derkos in Thrace. Thereupon the emperor had a
Pachomian monk named Paul consecrated as patriarch of Alexandria
by Menas. When Paul proved unsatisfactory, he was succeeded by a
Palestinian monk named Zoilus (c. 540). Thanks largely to
Theodora, the Monophysites were able to reply effectively. First, the
empress secured the return of Theodosius to Constantinople, where
he established a Monophysite presence under her patronage in the
palace of Hormisdas. In 541, taking advantage of a request by the
powerful ruler of the Ghassanid confederation of Arab tribes on
Rome's southeastern frontier for an "orthodox bishop," the empress
persuaded Theodosius to consecrate JACOB BORADAEUS, an east
Syrian, as metropolitan of Edessa, and Theodorus as bishop of
Bostra, the capital of the Roman province of Arabia.
Jacob Baradaeus (James Bar ’Adai) will always be associated
with the consolidation of monophysitism in Syria and Mesopotamia.
In fact, his original mission was not confined to these provinces or
identified with them. He was vested with authority "over all
countries not only of Syria and the whole of Armenia and
Cappadocia" but also over Isauria, Lycia, Phrygia, Cyprus, and the
islands. His was to be a roving commission devoted to the
maintenance of individual Monophysite congregations, wherever
they might be. The enormous energy of Jacob and his dedication to
his task transformed the situation. Between 542 and 578 he moved
from place to place: "sometimes travelling thirty or forty miles a
day, never staying long in any one district, he added to the numbers
of believers in every place, both Greeks and Syrians" (John of
Ephesus, LIVES OF THE EASTERN SAINTS, Vol. 18, col. 693;
cf. col. 695). He consecrated bishops as well as lower clergy,
"causing the priesthood to flow like great rivers over the whole
world of the Roman domains." His successes, especially in eastern
Syria, indicated both the underlying anti-Chalcedonian sentiment of
the mass of the people and their readiness, at least in matters of
belief, to oppose the will of the emperor. Constantinople, however,
remained the center of the movement and Patriarch Theodosius its
focus.
Similar trends can be seen in the second great Monophysite
missionary saga, the conversion of the Nobatian kingdoms (see
NOBATIA) south of the Roman frontier in Egypt. Christianity had
spread into NUBIA by the mid-fifth century (Michalowski, 1970, p.
12), but the conversion of the Nobatian court and kingdom was the
work of Monophysite missionaries sent by Theodora in 542 under
the presbyter Julian. The Nobatian king (not Silko—as once thought
[see Skeat, 1977, pp. 159-70; Rea, 1979, pp. 147-50]) was converted
to monophysitism and defied the later efforts of the orthodox envoys
sent by Justinian to change his mind. "We accept the gift of the king
of the Romans," he is reported to have said, "but his faith we will
not accept. If we deserve to become Christians we will follow after
the Pope Theodosius, whom because he would not accept the evil
faith of the king he expelled and ejected." Julian had done his work
of conversion well.
Though MAKOURIA, the middle of the three Nobatian
kingdoms, was converted to Chalcedon about 567, this was a
temporary phase; by the time of the Arab invasions, the vast
majority of the populations of Nobatia, of Egypt, and of Ethiopia
were Monophysite. Parts of southern Arabia and the kingdom of
Armenia were also Monophysite.
From the early eighth century on, the Nobatian kingdoms
produced a brillant Christian art, of which FARAS has provided the
most splendid examples (see Michalowski, 1974). Fragments of a
handsomely produced manuscript of the liturgy of Saint James and
manuscripts of the Greek Acta Mercurii and Acta Georgii have been
found in the cathedral church at Qasr Ibrim.
Relations with the Empire up to the Arab Conquests (536-641)
Justinian's condemnation of Severus in 536 marked a watershed
in the history of monophysitism. Up to then the Monophysites had
aimed at converting the empire to their view within the framework
of a united church. Now they were obliged to accept the fact of
schism whose healing would require the abrogation of a conciliar
decision against Severus, as well as denunciation of the Tome and
Chalcedon. Moreover, with the capture of Rome, on 9 December
536, by the Byzantine general Belisarius, the Roman bishops
became the emperor's subjects once more, and their influence in
Constantinople correspondingly increased. Finally, in Monophysitedominated
areas, the Tome and Chalcedon had become objects of
popular dislike. When, near the end of Justinian's reign, Bishop
Abraham bar Kaili tried to proclaim the decisions of Chalcedon at
the fortress town of Amida, the people shouted, "We will never
accept the synod and the Tome," and they rioted against the bishop
and the magistrates. Chalcedon had become a name of ill omen.
Despite these factors making for continued schism, the personal
relations between leading Monophysites and Justinian and his two
immediate successors, Justin II and Tiberius II, remained reasonably
friendly. A striking example is Justinian's use in 542 of John of
Ephesus as a missionary to surviving pockets of paganism in
western Asia Minor. John was so successful that it was recorded that
70,000 converts were baptized, and ninety-eight churches and
twelve monasteries were built for their use. This success, however,
did not prevent his being a prolific propagandist for monophysitism
and becoming Monophysite archbishop of Ephesus in 558. In
addition, Sophia, the consort of Justin II, was a friend of the
Monophysites at court.
After 536, however, all efforts to heal the breach had a
depressing similarity of high hopes succeeded by failure and
disillusion.
First, the "Three Chapters" controversy and the Second Council
of Constantinople in 553 were less concerned with monophysitism
than with the relations between Constantinople and Rome. While the
writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, the works of THEODORET,
bishop of Cyrrhus, against Cyril's Twelve Anathemas, and the letter
of Ibas to the presbyter Maris criticizing Cyril's theology were
condemned, the key Monophysite tenet that "out of the two natures"
there resulted "one" was also anathematized. Orthodoxy was now
enthroned on neo-Chalcedonian principles. Monophysitism had been
overtaken by new orthodox thought pioneered by Leontius of
Byzantium (see Meyendorff, 1975, pp. 74-85).
Second, at the Conference of Callinicum in 568, the
Monophysites were offered a compromise by Emperor Justin II. The
sole faith was that of the Nicene Creed. Christ was to be confessed
as "out of two natures one hypostasis and one persona," the "Three
Chapters" were to remain condemned, and the edict against Severus
would be abrogated. Jacob Baradaeus was ready to accept, but his
and other leaders' efforts to persuade the monks of the orthodoxy of
the statement without the explicit condemnation of Chalcedon
failed.
Third, the second Henoticon, of 571, was the final attempt by
Justin II to secure agreement with the Monophysites on the basis of
acknowledgment of Christ as "one Son, one person, one subsistence,
both God and man together," and the confession of "one incarnate
nature of the God-Logos" But again, since there was no
denunciation of Chalcedon, it failed.
The reign of the emperor Maurice, beginning in 582, saw a
renewal of persecution of the Monophysites, especially in Syria.
When Maurice was murdered by Phocas, who became emperor in
602, and the Persians invaded the empire, Monophysite opposition
to the imperial government began to harden. The seventh-century
chronicler JOHN OF NIKIOU commented on the disasters that
befell the empire: "This chastisement has befallen the earth owing to
the heresy of the emperor Maurice." Though the Persians were no
light taskmasters, the Monophysites found it was possible to retain
religious liberty under a foreign power, not least because the policy
of Chosroes II was to give them the status of a majority religion in
the Roman territory his armies occupied.
This policy was wise, for during the sixth century economic
changes had been taking place in Egypt and Syria that had
enormously increased the influence of the monasteries over the lives
of the rural population. In northern Syria, where monophysitism was
already strong, fieldwork by French archaeologists has established
that areas once dominated by large landed proprietors had in the
sixth century been transformed into villages where land was held by
individual families engaged in olive culture closely associated with
monasteries. In Egypt, monastic lands were even more extensive,
and the dependence of the peasants on the monasteries was
accordingly greater. Tradition preserved in the HISTORY OF THE
PATRIARCHS speaks of an area near Alexandria where "there are
600 flourishing monasteries, all inhabited by the orthodox," and
their cultivators "all held the true faith." This was the rock on which
all attempts by Justinian and his successors to convert Egypt to
Chalcedonianism foundered.
The victory of the emperor Heraclius over the Persians in 627-
630 gave the empire a final chance of settling with the
Monophysites. The emperor's acceptance of the Monenergist creed,
that in Christ there was one source of activity or energeia (see
MONENERGISM), came as near success as any of Justinian's and
Justin II's efforts, especially in Syria. In Egypt, however, incipient
goodwill was gradually eroded and then destroyed by the highhandedness
and duplicity of Cyrus, the emperor's choice for civil
governor and patriarch. When in 634 Heraclius was forced to
withdraw his project of unity on the basis of Monenergism owing to
the opposition of Pope Honorius and Sophronius, patriarch of
Jerusalem, the last hope of accord ended. Cyrus the Caucasian's
arbitrary rule alienated the Copts: "Sullen gloom descended on the
land" (Butler, 1902, p. 191). By 639, when the Arab armies arrived
in Egypt, they were ready to change masters.
Monophysitism must be regarded mainly as a religious dispute
within the framework of Byzantine Christianity. No social cleavage
divided its adherents from those of Chalcedon. Families rather than
clans were divided. Regional identities, except in Egypt, were slow
to form. While eventually monophysitism served as a focus for
discontent with the imperial government, it was far from being the
Byzantine equivalent of North African DONATISM. The key to its
territorial consolidation in both Egypt and Syria is to be found in the
great influence of the Monophysite monasteries on the lives of the
ordinary people, especially on the land. The combination of popular
religious devotion and economic changes that favored the growth of
vast monastic estates contributed to the victory of monophysitism in
Syria and Egypt in the sixth century. Thus the dispute "over a single
letter" (Evagrius, 2.5), the difference between HOMOOUSION (of
one substance) and HOMOIOUSION (of like substance), ultimately
proved insoluble.
W. H. C. FREND